Bevens v. Astrue

Full title: JENNIFER BEVENS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Washington

Date published: Jun 8, 2009

Civil No. 2:09-CV-113-CRD (W.D. Wash. Jun. 8, 2009)

Opinion

Civil No. 2:09-CV-113-CRD.

June 8, 2009

RICHARD A. MORRIS WSB # 33780, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, Washington.

ORDER

CAROLYN DIMMICK, Senior District Judge

Based on the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned case be REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the ALJ will hold a new hearing and issue a new decision. The ALJ will:

Develop the record and give further consideration to the severity of Plaintiff's impairments, including Plaintiff's migraine headaches. The Administrative Law Judge should attempt to obtain any available medical records, including records prior to January 2005. The record should also be developed to clarify the frequency, duration, and intensity of Plaintiff's migraines during the entire period at issue.

Give further consideration to the treating and examining source opinions, including the opinion evidence provided by Robert Dini, M.D., pursuant to the provisions of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927, and Social Security Rulings 96-2p and 96 5p, and nonexamining source opinions pursuant to the provisions of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f) and 416.927(f) and Social Security Ruling 96-6p.

Further obtain evidence from a medical expert to clarify the nature and severity of Plaintiff's impairment ( 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f), and Social Security Ruling 96-6p), and as necessary, an appropriate date of onset of disability in accordance with Social Security Ruling 83-20.

Further consider the lay evidence in the record in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(d)(4) 416.913(d)(4), and Social Security Ruling 06-03p, specifically, the information from Mary Harman, Plaintiff's mother (Tr. 149-157).

Further evaluate Plaintiff's subjective complaints and provide rationale in accordance with the disability regulations pertaining to evaluation of symptoms 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, and Social Security Ruling 96-7p.

If warranted by the expanded record, obtain evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on Plaintiff's occupational base (Social Security Ruling 83-12, 83-14, and 96-9p).

This case is reversed and remanded on the above grounds pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a), (d), upon proper request to this Court.